Would We Know It If We Saw It? Assessing Quality of Care in Group Homes for Youth

This article proposes and examines a parsimonious framework for assessing quality in therapeutic residential care. The synthesized conceptual framework includes four potentially critical domains of quality: setting, staffing, safety, and treatment. Data from a recently completed quasi-experimental study of group homes were used to examine prevalence of various key indicators within each of these domains and to explore relationships between these indicators and youth-level outcomes. Findings suggest that, among this sample of licensed homes in a southeastern state, licensure may be an initial indicator of baseline quality. Beyond this most basic level, utilization of an evidence-informed model (in this case, the teaching family model) was associated with better outcomes. Net of model, findings suggest that positively focused motivational systems, youth’s perceptions of staff’s fairness and helpfulness, provision of age/interest-appropriate toys/books/games, more preservice training, and prohibition of physical restraint were all associated with better outcomes for youth. Additional work is needed to assess the generalizability and utility of this framework for assessing quality in group homes.

Does Model Matter? Examining Change Across Time for Youth in Group Homes

Group homes are a frequently used but controversial treatment setting for youth with mental health problems. Within the relatively sparse literature on group homes, there is some evidence that some models of treatment may be associated with more positive outcomes for youth. This article explores this possibility by examining differences across time for youth served in group homes utilizing the Teaching Family Model (TFM) and geographically proximate homes using more eclectic approaches. Data come from a longitudinal quasi-experimental study that included 554 youth. Results suggest that youth showed, on average, significant and rapid improvement during initial months in a group home. Improvement did not differ for TFM and non-TFM homes during this initial period. Post-discharge results, though, show that TFM was associated with continued improvement after discharge and significantly better outcomes by 8 months post-discharge. Results also discuss youth-level factors that may influence outcomes as well as need for additional work to more fully understand processes and practices that are key for maximizing and maintaining youths’ positive outcomes during and after group home placements.